Davis v. Walker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2001
• Docket: 99-2577
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2577

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUSSELL G. WALKER, JR., N. C. Superior Court Judge, in his official and individual capac- ities; JOE FREEMAN BRITT, N. C. Superior Court Judge, in his official and individual capac- ities; MICHAEL EASLEY, N. C. Attorney General, in his official and individual capacities; JAMES C. FOX, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; W. EARL BRITT, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; MALCOLM J. HOWARD, U. S. District Court Judge, in his of- ficial and individual capacities; TERRENCE W. BOYLE, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; WALLACE W. DIXON, U. S. Magistrate Judge, in his official and individual capacities; DAVID W. DANIEL, U. S. District Court, in his official and individual capacities; JANICE M. COLE, U. S. Attorney, in her official and individual capacities; PAUL M. NEWBY, Assistant U. S. Attorney, in his official and individual capacities; STAN TODD, Assistant District Attorney, in his official and individual capacities; RICHARD TOWNSEND, Robeson County District Attorney, in his official and indi- vidual capacities; MARK BRADLEY, City Police Officer, in his official and individual capacities; DON WARD, City Police Officer, in his official and individual capacities; HARRY DOLAN, Chief of Police, in his official and individual capacities; FRANKIE G. FLOYD, private citizen, in her individual capacity; JAMIE MICHELLE FLOYD, private citizen, in her individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-116-7-F)

No. 00-1838

PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ROBESON COUNTY, Board of Education, in its official capacity; DOUGLAS Y. YONGUE, in his official and individual capacities; ARNOLD LOCKLEAR, in his official and individual capacities; TOMMY D. SWETT, in his official and individual capacities; BETH WILLIAMSON, in her official and individual capacities; ABNER HARRINGTON, in his official and individual capacities; MIKE SMITH, in his official and individual capacities; PAUL BROOKS, in his official and individual capac- ities; ROBERT DEESE, in his official and individual capacities; BERRY HARDING, in his official and individual capacities; JAMES C. FOX, U. S. District Court Judge, in his offi- cial and individual capacities; W. EARL BRITT, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; MALCOLM J. HOWARD, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; TERRENCE W. BOYLE, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; STACEY L. FULLER,

2 Private Individual, in her individual capac- ity; KELVIN STONE, U. S. Marshal, in his indi- vidual and official capacities,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. William L. Osteen, District Judge, sitting by designation. (MISC-99-2-5)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David Fred Hoke, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jerri Ulrica Dunston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Patricia Pursell Kerner, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North Carolina; Alexander M. Hall, HALL, HORNE & SULLIVAN, L.L.P., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

3 PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Davis appeals the district court’s orders denying

his civil action, motion to reconsider, and “opposition” to

District Judge Osteen ruling on his action. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See No. 99-2577, Davis v. Walker, No. CA-98-116-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 1999; Oct. 22, 1999); No. 00-1838, Davis v.

Public Sch. of Robeson Cty., No. MISC-99-2-5 (E.D.N.C. filed

June 9, 2000; entered June 14, 2000). We also dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED